Progressives (Liberals)

The Social Security Works bunch on Facebook posted that Trump is about to sign a bill to open the government until Feb 15. With no wall money. It's a baby step. We will see what transpires next.

Jayar Jackson
@JayarJackson
·
18m
The applause at Trump's capitulation speech on his gov shutdown that basically congratulated him for being a selfish & petulant POS, galvanizes his determination to do it again. He's gotten applause for failure his whole life
Stop congratulating & rewarding failure & instability

The first link (MSNBC)
Neither evil nor (from what is reported here) dishonest.

The Snopes piece is without any evidence supporting what your earlier quoted passage charges. They link to the Paste (entertainment/music focus) article that makes your charges but that link contains no evidence at all. Nuttin.

Surprisingly, the Daily Caller is far and away the best piece of the three.
There are aspects to the language used here that suggest a right wing source but overall it doesn't head out into lunacy.

Being a Sanders supporter, I can understand your distaste for these actions and for the fellow but your description of Brock and Media Matters and his PAC matches precisely the right wing media attacks. Precisely.

And I saw nothing on a MM hit piece.

Wikipedia

Comments about Brock
In 2001, Jonah Goldberg wrote in National Review that while Brock has been "hailed by liberals for 'coming clean,' they would never really trust him." He quoted reporter Jill Abramson as having said that "the problem with Brock's credibility" is that "once you admit you've knowingly written false things, how do you know when to believe what he writes?"[16] Similarly, The Guardian referred in 2014 to "residual unease among some liberal operatives that Brock's conversion story fits into a pattern of opportunism and self-promotion rather than ideological transformation."[31] Observing in 2015 that Brock had admitted to mudslinging before, The Daily Beast noted a difficulty in dispatching fears he would do it again.[5]

Brock's claim that the Clintons have never committed any wrongdoing has received criticisms from many, including fellow Democrats, who have cited instances of abuse.[63]

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks criticized Brock's negative coverage of the Bernie Sanders 2016 Presidential Campaign, specifically the invention of the "Bernie Bro" controversy.[64][65] Uygur said that Brock's January 10, 2017 open letter of apology to Sanders and his voters[66] was disingenuous because it was motivated by a desire to raise money from wealthy democratic donors and to foster a perception of himself as being a member of the U.S. progressive movement.[64]

This is the sort of thing that stirs the ire of liberals over Brock.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-fans-can-t-be-allowed-poison-another-democratic-ncna953976

I would have expected some praise for Pelosi or Schumer, especially in light of that sillly TYT video you posted earlier

Well, they don't get any.

The real test will come on the fifteenth.

The first Dem candidate to drop out is Richard Ojeda. His reason seemed flimsy. I figure he just wasn't getting any traction.

No loss there.

Trump voter.

Michael Moore
1 hr ·
Trump TRUMPED! Choked on Nancy’s leash. But don’t think he’s going away. He will use these three weeks to plot the most deceptive and treasonous fake “national emergency” in the history of this country, rivaling the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin “attack.” Trump will try to declare his own version of martial law in order to get his Wall. And that is when he is going to meet us, the American people. He has no clue what we will do — in massive, nonviolent numbers — to stop him, to resist and ignore his “national emergency” and to remove him from our White House. Let’s use these three weeks to make a national plan to rise up and stop this tragedy once and for all.

There are more of us than there are of him.

The Hill is reporting on a Yahoo story that two unnamed sources say Bernie’s announcement is imminent.

Since I don’t trust either source, I feel I may have needlessly executed a couple of hamsters, but had to say, eh. #bernie2020

I saw a post on OAC's facebook page saying the same thing. Of course, what imminent means to us may be differently defined by Bernie.

damn shame

I hadn't been following Gillum.

Glad he was weeded out before going national.

I must have missed that.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/21/ocasio-cortez-marginal-tax-rate/

223
WITH ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, AMERICANS FINALLY HAVE A POLITICIAN WHO AGREES WITH THEM ABOUT TAXES
Jon Schwarz
January 21 2019, 3:06 p.m.
Photo illustration: Soohee Cho/The Intercept
MUCH OF THE U.S. political system was flummoxed two weeks ago when a brand new 29-year-old congressperson made a seemingly radical proposal on “60 Minutes.”

Here’s what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said that wound everyone up: The U.S. should tax income over $10 million per year at a top rate of 60 or 70 percent.

Republicans responded by shamelessly lying about what this meant, pretending that Ocasio-Cortez was advocating a tax rate of 70 percent on all income. Some older Democrats, such as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, adopted the standard Democratic tactic of cowering in fear before a deceptive Republican onslaught, like abused dogs.

The hullabaloo was understandable: Ocasio-Cortez’s forthright advocacy demonstrated that American politics, against the odds, can sometimes be about what Americans want. After the “60 Minutes” episode aired, The Hill commissioned a poll that found that 59 percent of registered voters support raising the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent. The idea, The Hill wrote, even receives “a surprising amount of support among Republican voters. … 45 percent of GOP voters say they favor it.”

However, the only surprising thing about this Republican support was that The Hill found it surprising. For the past 40 years, polls have uniformly shown that there is essentially no constituency for cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans or corporations — and a huge constituency for raising them.

Two prominent political scientists, Martin Gilens at the University of California, Los Angeles and Benjamin Page at Northwestern University, have carefully studied the U.S. political system and demonstrated with charts and tables what most of us believe intuitively: If you don’t have money, you don’t matter. Or as Gilens and Page put it, “Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all. By contrast, economic elites are estimated to have a quite substantial, highly significant, independent impact on policy.”

The last 40 years of U.S. tax policy have been the most striking demonstration imaginable of this assertion. Americans have never, in living memory, been averse to higher taxes on the rich. Nonetheless, the top marginal tax rate for the federal income tax plunged during the Reagan administration, from 70 percent to 28 percent, and has since only inched back up to 37 percent.

Taxes1b-1547848630Chart: Moiz Syed/The Intercept
Republicans, many Democrats, and well-paid television journalists have browbeaten Americans for years with tales of how raising taxes on the wealthy would obliterate the U.S. economy. But the historical fact is that the economy has thrived with top rates of 80 percent or higher. In fact, as tax rates have come down, so has the rate of economic growth.

The top marginal corporate tax rate likewise dropped precipitously under Reagan, from 46 percent to 34 percent. Thanks to Trump’s 2017 tax bill, it’s now down to 21 percent.

❤️❤️❤️
https://www.gq.com/story/bernie-sanders-unfinished-business

THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF BERNIE SANDERS

He went from the rumpled bit player of the progressive movement to a legit presidential candidate and liberal kingmaker. But now that Sanders wields such enormous power in Democratic politics, the question is, what’s he going to do with it? Jason Zengerle hit the road with Sanders as the senator grapples with what to do next.

“Forget it,” Bernie Sanders grumbled. “I don’t want to get into process questions!”
It was an afternoon earlier this winter, and I had come to the Vermont senator’s office in Washington to ask him a version of the question that has consumed the Democratic Party, and liberal politics in general, for close to three years now: What does Bernie want?

Back in the summer of 2016, after Sanders’s long-shot presidential campaign had come shockingly close to clinching the Democratic nomination, the question was: What did he want in exchange for dropping out of the race and backing Hillary Clinton? Then, when Donald Trump was elected, the question was: What did Sanders—who’d spent a quarter century in Congress as the quintessential, minimally effective gadfly—want to do with his newfound prominence?
Today, the question has taken its most urgent and consequential form to date: What does Sanders, with his sky-high name recognition and legions of supporters, want to do in the 2020 presidential race?
Suffice it to say, it’s a question Sanders has been pondering ever since Trump won—not just with friends and family and advisers but over and over in his own head. It’s not, however, a question he likes to kick around with reporters. And now, shifting in a chair at the head of a long conference table, he seemed as tightly coiled as the mousetrap that sat on the floor in the corner of the room. (The dirty secret about Capitol Hill is that it’s infested not with lobbyists but with rodents.) I asked whether he was ready for the vicious attacks he’d face in another presidential campaign? “I know you’re well-intentioned, but it’s political gossip!” he replied. Did it give him any pause that a number of Democratic presidential candidates looked like they were trying to steal his platform? “You’re into gossip!” he said.
In some respects, Sanders was the same irascible, iconoclastic figure that afternoon that he’s always been. His nimbus of white hair was typically unkempt; the dandruff on the shoulders of his blue suit was as plentiful as ever. He was as averse to schmoozing as he was when he arrived in the Senate in 2007. In one of his first days on the job, Sanders bumped into then New Mexico senator Pete Domenici in one of the tunnels underneath the Capitol. The two said hello and had what Sanders thought was a perfectly pleasant exchange—until shortly thereafter, when Sanders received a personal note from Domenici profusely apologizing for their curt interaction. “He hates the word, but there’s an authenticity to Bernie,” says Faiz Shakir, a former Sanders adviser. “The curmudgeonliness is the same on and off the screen.”
But in other, more profound ways, Sanders has become an entirely different person. In the nearly four years since he announced his first presidential campaign, he has done more to remake the modern Democratic Party in his image than any politician since Bill Clinton—and that includes Barack Obama, who not only spent eight years in the White House but also was a Democrat. (As his friends and foes often emphasize, the socialist Sanders does not serve in the Senate as a Democrat but rather as an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.) Medicare for All, a $15-an-hour minimum wage, free college—the issues that he championed during the 2016 Democratic primary and that Hillary Clinton dismissed as naive and unrealistic—are now mainstream Democratic Party positions. “We are where we are,” says Shakir, who’s now the ACLU’s national political director, “because Bernie forced the party to rethink everything.”

(Much more at the link)

Well, I personally don't like Ed, but you're being unfair here. The Snoopes article he posted is quite detailed. It does not positively establish that some pro-hillary trolls postured as 'bernie bros' but it does show that some folks were playing dricks against Sanders so dirty that Podesta objected.. It happened on this very site too: the attacks against Sanders by Hillary supporters tended to be very mean if not downright malicious.